Forum:Demotion of Temporaryeditor78
For some time, Temporaryeditor78, the admin of this wiki, demonstrated abrasive and rude behavior towards the other users, regardless of intention. He didn't assume good faith or gave the benefit of the doubt. He told me me that, and I quote, "excellent job at an exercise in research failure and/or illiteracy." He constantly shot me down because of my small number of contributions to this wiki. That was not a valid argument, telling me to do better. That doesn't mean I can't tell the difference between a bad user or a good user. Even Elseweyr, a Helper, told him to stop, yet he refused to change his behavior. If a regular user had done this, they would've been punished for insulting other users. But that wasn't the case for Temp. Because of Temp’s behavior, other users are hesitant to contribute to the wiki, which suffered as the result. That was not the traits of a good admin. Theses were the traits of a bad admin. The good faith policy, as I would call it, was part of Wikipedia' guidelines: The principle Ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for: "ignorance of the law does not excuse") is incompatible with the guidelines of "do not bite" and "assume good faith". In this case, ignorance of Wikipedia's guidelines can excuse the mistakes of a newcomer. Furthermore, you yourself violate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies when you attack a new user for ignorance of them. Try instead to follow the points set forth in this article to relieve new editors of their ignorance. Keep in mind that this is not the way many other things work, and even seasoned editors fail to follow—or are simply unaware of—our guidelines from time to time. To a newcomer, the large number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is overwhelming. Ignorance of the rules can often be expected, but willfully disregarding them and disrupting the editorial process of constructing our online encyclopedia is quite another. If you exclude editors without barnstars and the like from your circle you probably diminish the final product. In all cases though, we ought to interact with our fellow editors with gentleness and respect. As a matter of fact, I have filed a complaint to the Wikia staff of these incidents. They acknowledged that they disapprove of his approach to other users, but they’re unable to do anything about it, suggesting that I should either make a compromise, call for a vote, or leave. I believe making a compromise or telling him to end his behavior would not resolve the issue, as he had refused to listen time and time again. I know what you’re thinking if he gets removed from his position: what will happen next? Don’t worry; SparkHawg948 and Trandra are currently the admins of this wiki. And we can always vote in a new admin. Voting Yes # As prosper. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 07:19, July 13, 2014 (UTC) # If you ban someone for making this page and then try to erase it, you're not fit to be an admin. Change your inappropriate behavior or find something better to do that makes you feel like a tough guy. Mr. Mittens (talk) 02:26, July 14, 2014 (UTC) #SlyGentleman --SlyGentleman (talk) 05:11, July 14, 2014 (UTC) # DID SOMEONE SAY CHARLIE!? --Charles Saracino 02:36, July 14, 2014 (UTC) # I support this. -- 22:30, July 14, 2014 (UTC) Neutral # I see and somewhat agree with the complaints being raised, but I will not remove a valued contributor for it. Abstain. Garhdo (talk) 23:41, July 13, 2014 (UTC) # See below.--Hawki (talk) 23:54, July 13, 2014 (UTC) # Would Support, as per: Excessively blunt, supercilious and rude (per Mittens) - which harms userbase growth; and admin rights should not be merited as a reward for straight contribs, nor are rights necessary for the job of quality control. Techhead7890Talk 11:30, July 14, 2014 (UTC) ## However, while there has already been an extremely large amount of evidence against TE78, I am somewhat inclined to give him another chance and support DeldiRe's proposal because growing the admin team is helpful, and a positive outcome that is more likely to achieve the results desired. No # Elseweyr talk • 23:25:08, 2014-07-13 (UTC) # MarkRulez711 (talk) 00:05, July 14, 2014 (UTC) #--Perkins98 (talk) 00:08, July 14, 2014 (UTC) #See below --DeldiRe (talk) 09:27, July 14, 2014 (UTC) # SpartHawg948 (talk) 09:56, July 14, 2014 (UTC) # Niniendowarrior (talk) 11:01, July 14, 2014 (UTC) # FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 11:40, July 14, 2014 (UTC) Discussion The points raised by Nord are adequately presented, and while there is a strong air of victimisation in those claims (whether Nord is accurate in that analysis or not), they are legitimate. Temp's contributions to this wiki are numerous and immeasurable, and he has been a great help on many issues. However since ascending to the admin position, perhaps as a result of being the only active administrator for this wiki, he has become somewhat brusque in some of his interactions with users. I have mentioned this before when I stated that it reminded me of a similar admin who's attitude had soured before that admin voluntarily left the wiki, but not before causing great harm and damage to the community here. I do not want the mistakes of the past to be repeated and new users to be discouraged with unkind words. My view as it currently stands is thus: *Yes Temp's attitude has on occasions been rude and unforgiving, as highlighted by Nord, yet he is a worthwhile addition to this wiki's senior staff and has made numerous valued improvements to this wiki that should not be forgotten. But just as with that former admin his contributions do not negate the potential negative impact on new users. *This community is currently a lot smaller than it once was, and has been perhaps irreparably damaged by such disagreements among the community in the past. Real information about Mass Effect 4 is potentially just around the corner and so potentially will be new users. We need to send the right first impressions to them. *Temp is also the currently ONLY active admin. Trandra is active but rarely. I have not seen Spart in months. Several others are awol. We also have no active Senior Editors and very few active Chatmods. IF it comes that Temp is demoted I would say he is made Senior Editor, and active Chatmods (namely Else and Deldi - I exempt myself as I do not have the time to devote here at present) are promoted to the same position and they supervise the wiki together. If a new admin is needed it should not be elected immediately but be voted on by the community after a certain amount of time has elapsed. Trandra would remain the only active admin and could be reached if necessary, as can wikia staff. Garhdo (talk) 23:16, July 13, 2014 (UTC) This proposal is a bit of an insult to this wiki's most devoted and competent editor and only active admin. Maintaining the site as well as adding tons of new content is hard work -- and who ever thanks him for it? He earned his rights, and readers owe the quality they seem to like to take for granted in large part to him. Strongly oppose. Elseweyr talk • 23:25:08, 2014-07-13 (UTC) I don't think I'm in a position to vote either way, but I feel compelled to make the following comments (speaking as an admin of other wikis): *I cannot condone Temp's behaviour. I have accepted that there are registered users on wikia that seem unable to improve their style or follow a MoS, but unless there is malicious intent behind their actions, I cannot condone blocking. Not unless it's in the most extreme of circumstances, and based on Oldeg and Rannoc's behaviour, I cannot cite any malicious intent, or disruption (e.g. the Education page didn't impact any other pages in its inclusivity). *That said, Temp's actions have a precedent, as I found a similar attitude back during ME1 The wiki's MO is to basically copy-paste information (e.g. codex entries) rather than attempt to integrate the information except in rare circumstances. My thoughts on this aside, Temp's actions have been in keeping with the MoS. Uldag's Earth edits are an article, as the sub-heading used for the locations did not have precedent in the MoS. Fair enough. *On the other hand, Oldag's actions do keep in good faith, in that they were based on the provision of information. Listing locations. In the time it took for Temp to say that there's an additional information section precedent on the talk page, the information could simply have been moved/adjusted to the desired form. I know that not every admin has time to chase after every edit. Some edits may present valuable information, but choose the wrong way for doing so. But simply reverting an article edit doesn't help. I feel that using the example of Earth, a lot of grief could have been shared by altering the sub-heading, mentioning on the talk page that it wasn't presented in the desired form (or on Oldag's userpage, not without descending into insults at least). *Nord's right about one thing, Temp's actions are intimidating. After seeing Oldag and Rannoc be banned, my intent at the time was to take up Oldag's additions to the Earth article in Temp's form (narrative form...to list locations...). A form I disagree with, but was willing to abide by. Now however, I can say that I will not do that. Because I feel a precedent was set at the time that any edit that deviates from Temp's intent for an article is grounds for being banned. Which brings me back to the previous post that a lot of time and effort could have been saved if Temp altered Odag's edit rather than reverted it. Lead by example and all that. *Which brings us to the current state of the wiki. The education proposal is likely to fall through, with these nuggets of info stored on character pages, with no means of finding structures pertaining to education (which is what category pages exist for). The characters list proposed by UnknownOne is looking every bit as unwieldly as I feared it would be (and I speak from experience). Cerberus Daily News is an interesting read, but bar some rare cases, there are no means of finding accumulated information. I can't find info just on Lira Speight or on President Huerta for example, unless I want to embark on detective work, shift through every mention of them, and try and form a complete picture that will only exist in my mind or on my userpage. The timeline article, functional as it is, lists only certain types of information, and if you want the more obscure ones, tough luck. Temp's actions, I disagree with, and seem more based in the spirit of letter of the law rather than the spirit of it. But they have been with the letter of it. I can only hope that this discussion may loosen up the MoS and allow more accumulative type articles (which is the virtue of wikis in the first place, to present and accumulate material official sources cannot or will not), but I'm not counting on it. I've been hoping for that since ME1 :(--Hawki (talk) 23:54, July 13, 2014 (UTC) Must be a little weird to see me here, but I was asked to weigh in. The attitude that these examples display is very similar to the one held by the the two active admins around the time that I decided to leave here, Lancer1289 and SpartHawg948. Nord is correct with his claim that this attitude goes directly against Wikia guidelines, and is extremely unbecoming of anyone in a leadership position. I was originally not planning on voting, because I didn't feel it would be appropriate since I haven't been around to see Temp at work. But then I read the extremely hostile message that he left on Nord's page before having him blocked one hour later. There is also a post on Temps' talk page that suggests that he simply deleted this page in response. That's inexcusable behavior. Lancer and SpartHawg hated my guts, but when I pushed to have one of them demoted, they were smart enough to handle things like men. Not only am I going to vote in favor of him getting demoted, I'm going to suggest that Nord file a claim to Wikia Administration, because this is a obvious abuse of power. Mr. Mittens (talk) 02:24, July 14, 2014 (UTC) Power to the people, i hate over modishish mods man, stop haressing people, this is why the wiki got terrible --Charles Saracino 02:38, July 14, 2014 (UTC) I have been watching this wiki for some time and I must say I'm surprised this hasn't happened sooner. Temp is a good editor, no one can dispute that, but his attitude is detestable and frankly hazardous to the wiki. If there removed it may encourage more editors to contribute. In any case, such an attitude should not be acceptable. I'd also go on to say that his behaviour is an abuse of power. Any normal contributor would be blocked instantly if they spewed as many insults as Temp did. So, I have to agree to this I'm afraid. And Elseweyr, no one deserves to be treated the way Temp treats people, it doesn't matter how good an editor Temp is. --SlyGentleman (talk) 05:11, July 14, 2014 (UTC) If I may, I'd like to insert my two cents into the conversation. I feel as though a large volume of contributions, no matter how notable, is largely irrelevant to one's status as an administrator. Wikia is driven by its community, and if members of the Mass Effect Wiki feel unwelcome in any way, I feel that this community has failed on some level. More than anything else, an admin's duty should be to foster community growth and create a friendly atmosphere that encourages everyone to edit, not just one prolific editor with a few extra buttons. The reality of it is that the users with higher privileges will no doubt have more edits than any other users - and to be sure, Temp's contributions should not go without note. Regardless, this is a collaborative project, and it should be considered that you can edit nearly as well without admin rights. Administration powers should be granted to those community leaders who not only lead by example through prolific, high-quality editing, but also take the time to make sure the userbase feels welcome. You're job is to keep the wiki running smooth, and whilst content is the meat and bones of the site, its users are the heart of the whole project, and making them feel unwelcome in any way feels extremely unproductive and is the very antithesis of what Wikia is. If honest mistakes elicit harsh reactions, it's going to be extremely difficult to engage readers to be anything more than that. This being a Wikia wiki, it should feel open and accessible, whilst maintaining the high level of quality for which this site is known. I'm not suggesting we open the flood gates or re-write the rules, only that users be treated kindly in a cordial and friendly manner. This is a wiki about video games after all! It should be all about having fun and working together. In conclusion, if this supposed trend continues, a demotion may be necessary, but I'm all for second chances. If this is something that has been noted by the community, perhaps it would be best for Temp to take a step back and re-consider their attitude. I fully understand that being an editor on a wiki can be stressful at times, especially on one as large as this. --The Milkman | I always . 08:21, July 14, 2014 (UTC) I will start by quoting Elseweyr as she is more than often the voice of wisdom : "This proposal is a bit of an insult to this wiki's most devoted and competent editor and only active admin. Maintaining the site as well as adding tons of new content is hard work -- and who ever thanks him for it? He earned his rights, and readers owe the quality they seem to like to take for granted in large part to him. Strongly oppose." And even if I also had some disputes with Temp, he is also always open to discussion and he is willing to help in his own way. As Milkman said, a good contributor is not necessarily a good admin in terms of community management. However, a good admin has to have “technical” skills to manage the wikia. On this side, I think that Temp is one of the best member of this community (to not say the best, Elseweyr and Trandra are also really good). For the community part, the remarks of Nord and Garhdo are legitimate (and I truly understand them), this wikia is unpleasant with new comers, it’s a fact! It’s a situation who is present since I joined the wiki 2 years ago and that I despite since the beginning. However, my love for Mass Effect (and for some editors) have pushed me to do all the efforts needed to be part of this community. The situation is not new and we can’t put the responsibility of this situation on Temp’s shoulders who is already working a lot (and alone) to maintain the content of this huge wikia ! We should all be thankful for that ! And this situation should not be a vendetta against him but rather a fresh wave on this wiki. The wiki’s philosophy towards users has a problem not Temp (even if nobody is perfect). To cool down the situation, I would suggest to enter in a constructive phase: *Close this insane vote who could lead this wiki to a dead end and a splitted community; *Unban or reduce the length of the recent bans (it could be great to reduce the drama over here) ; *By doing so, we close all the discussions and we are in a “status quo” who is the necessary basis to improve this community; *Think together and find a consensus for a new guideline about how we should deal with newcomers in a positive and constructive way ; *Launch an election for one (or several) new admin and/or senior editor who could strengthen the actual “team”. Temp isn’t a dictator and he will never be like that. But as he is alone in its position, it sometimes looks like he is such a dictator. It’s not true. (I’m not presenting myself to that position because I don’t have the skills for that). This new admin/senior should maybe focus on community management instead of content management even if both are related and no decision should be taken alone. *Reinforce the community weight so that everybody will help Temp to deal with newcomers. He can’t always be the bad guy… We all have to take our responsibilities when somebody is acting wrong (even in good faith). I want a strong community not a community who tackle problems with more problems (as this vote do). --DeldiRe (talk) 09:25, July 14, 2014 (UTC) :Guess who's back?!? Anywho, as indicated above, I'm against this proposal. Just a quick pointer. This is NOT Wikipedia. Wikipedia's good faith policy doesn't apply here. Unless we've added one in my absence, this wiki has no corresponding policy. Fully half of the proposal is a quote from the site policies of an unaffiliated website. Just saying... :What really decided this for me is that Elseweyr, who is cited in the proposal, has in point of fact voted AGAINST the proposal. This, to me, speaks volumes about the proposal and its merits. :Oh... and as is well known, I'm notoriously vain and a colossal jerk. Just ask The Milkman. I'm not voting in favor of any proposal by anyone who misspells my username. Also, no promises, but I'll try to be around more again. Which could be a good thing or a bad thing! depending on your outlook... SpartHawg948 (talk) 10:05, July 14, 2014 (UTC) ::Welcome back! ::I'd like to point out a couple more things: ::* I don't approve of being mentioned in the proposal and indeed I do not support it. To clarify, my Helper status has little to do with my role here: in lacking local rights -- other than chat mod, which barely counts -- I have no more authority than a regular user. ::* The guidelines for the ideal admin are just that: guidelines. Wikia admins don't have to be exemplary community managers (or even nice) in order to use sysop tools for wiki maintenance. ::On an unrelated note (but since it's come up), if new Senior Editors are to be appointed, they don't have to be selected from Chat Moderators. Chat modding is separate and doesn't involve editing privileges outside the Chat feature. Elseweyr talk • 10:51:42, 2014-07-14 (UTC) While I note the merits and contributions of Temporaryeditor78, I find his methods unusually blunt and unwilling to find a compromise and cite this as my reason of support. While I am biased, being on the recieving end of some of his actions, I feel more inclined to support newcomers. Amongst all the random edits, there are always a few new users that are willing to contribute over a long period and the wiki as a whole is disadvantaged if they are turned away. This is why Wikipedia has such policies and why new-editor policies such as In Good Faith implicitly affect '''all wiki communities who desire growth. However, I also need to disclose that I take this standpoint as I am in favour of encouraging and fostering newcomer interest and involvement, I have had run ins with site-officials and the lack of comment or feedback, and the lack of good faith. I believe that were his actions justified with brief comment, or otherwise of a less annoyed tone towards new users, would resolve this perception of obnoxiousness. Unfortunately while the earlier personal dispute was resolved to a "sufficient" degree, and I do acknowledge after first contact he became slightly more civil, I have not really seen sufficient change from him for the better - and would cite Mitten's comment above regarding this. I acknowledge the point above about him not being a dictator and perhaps it raises the point that this change need not be permanent - perhaps only a short duration of standing down would be sufficient. Additionally on permissions, while I know little of the administrative side of the wiki, it seems that most of his actions are focused on standard content pages. While mainpages and news and the like most likely require status to edit, I am not aware of any special permissions required to remove vandalism and other quality issues. Additionally, permissions (in my view) are '''not a reward for simply having contributions, but a longstanding interest in the development of the wiki. I have mixed feeling about saying this due to her desire to not be involved as above and I have to swallow my pride in yet another earlier dispute as well; but as a user without admin permissions, Elseweyr still does a fine job removing or altering content lacking in quality and is able to justify the changes in good faith to editors and is not excessively rude. While it is definitely useful to have multiple people working, I would like to emphasise the fact she doesn't have admin rights, nor does she necessarily need them to carry out the job of altering low-quality edits. Upon-rereading, this appears to be largely the point raised by Milkman. In summary: excessively blunt, rights not necessary for the job. As per Milkman and Mittens. Techhead7890Talk 11:26, July 14, 2014 (UTC) :There's nothing wrong with your consideration for newcomers, but the point you raise about "rights not necessary for the job" is moot. Obviously regular editors have access to most editing tools, but having someone around with the ability to protect a wiki from vandalism (among other things) is what sysop rights are for. Being left alone to carry out those responsibilities wasn't Temporaryeditor78's choice, but he stayed anyway. Elseweyr talk • 12:37:40, 2014-07-14 (UTC) Admin rights can make editing easier, but are not at all essential. With admin rights you are trusted with the ability to upload multiple images, access the admin dashboard, rollback edits with a single button press, etcetera. This doesn't mean that admin rights should be a reward for contributions, but rather that being a reliable contributor is a requirement for being an admin, the obvious distinction being that there are also community powers that come with it. At admin level, you're allowed to ban users from chat and the wiki as a whole for an indiscriminate length of time, if you so choose. The other side of this is that, as an admin, you are the first person to whom users should look for advice and information. As admin you'll likely be doing the lion's share of contributions, but I feel that even more important than editing yourself is helping new users feel comfortable with editing. They shouldn't be treated as a nuisance (even if they can annoy you), but rather a potential helper of the wiki. As admin, it's your job to encourage more people to contribute in a productive manner that falls in line with the established guidelines. In conclusion, I feel that if one's only merit is a large amount of contributions they don't necessarily need to be granted admin status, as there are levels below that (Rollback Editor for example) that grant extra rights to trusted users, without placing on the burden of community management, which is the most essential job of an admin, and what makes each wiki's team of administrators stand out from other users. This is Wikia, where everyone can edit. Not everyone can manage a growing community, and it's important to understand that distinction. --The Milkman | I always . 20:17, July 14, 2014 (UTC)